Windows uses a lot more pagefile that assigned.

Basically I have 16GB RAM. In only one instance I remember it ever gets to 52-53% and that's when windows is installing updates and I also play games. 99% of the time I barely use 4GB.

I want Windows to stop wasting my SSD space and usage with files that it can very easily use the other 12GB of RAM to swap or whatever else windows needs to function.

Callender said:

C:\Windows\Temp directory is always empty as files are only written to RAMDisk.

Attachment 392490

Is drive V your RAMDisk?

I assume RAMDisk is one of these that do cost some money to use?

Guess I'll move the Windows\Temp folders on my HDD drive as well like I did with the Temp files in users.

Do note that this is my view and opinion.

Frankly speaking, how each user uses the computer is different.
Hence, there are a lot of difference of opinion on about pagefile, on system SSD &or HDD &or RAM disk.

If one tend to use the computer for application that rely much resource, this is where pagefile &or RAM disk do play a part.
As for those who do not rely on such application, then it is different, as the system will seldom use pagefile.

For system managed on pagefile, upon first use, the system will create the pagefile is on one big sector, no gap.
As what i mean on this, is that the pagefile will not shrink the size.
This is different from normal files, such as application data, which may increase/shrink in size, accordingly.
Hence, the data is all over the Disk space - that is fragment.

Whereas, pagefile will always remain at 8GB as system managed.
It do not shrink and later increase in size.
In this way, it stay on that particular block sectors.
Windows 7 is said to improve on many features, which include how it manage pagefile.

Even if said that that block of sectors may damaged in the long run, it should not be any problem.
The system will take care of that.

If the pagefile is too small or move to the RAM, there would have some effect on performance.
The knock-on effect will be felt, when the application rely heavily on resource and unable to get, it may cause error.

But for user who do not do any application that required much resource, then a small pagefile on another drive is more than enough.

In the end, it is up to each user to consider on this pagefile size, convert some RAM to RAM disk, etc.

Layback Bear said:

Someone pleas correct me if I'm not understanding correctly.

My understanding is Windows 7 when set to system manage will only use pagefile when needed. If it's not needed it doesn't use pagefile. I personally let Windows 7 use my system as it see fit. Window 7 knows what resources it need to be using and when.

That is one of the big improvement put into Windows 7 over XP. Us old time XP users asked for better memory management by the operating system and we got it with Windows 7.
When I first got Windows 7 I tried all the memory tricks use in XP and found it was a waste of time and a great operating system.
To the best of my 3 brain cell I can't find a flaw in Windows 7 management of memory when the system is allowed to manage the memory. All I had to do was take off my XP hat and put on my Windows 7 hat.

Not sure how optimised Windows 7 really is with SSD usage since when it came out, consumer SSD's just started to make their appearance. Yes most likely there are patches for optimisation, but when core of Windows 7 was designed consumer SSD's were not really a thing

For me personally I hate seeing so much free RAM that I spent money on sit empty and unused while some page file is used on the SSD and takes up space for nothing really (empty RAM!)

AddRAM said:

But the problem here is, according to the OP, the system is using a larger page file then he has allotted.
I suggest he go a week without a page file, see what happens.

It is clear from the Task Manager screenshot that the pagefile usage is no where near as high as the MSI Afterburner screenshot would seem to indicate. The pagefile size would have to be at least the size of pagefile usage which would produce a commit limit of over 32 GB. The commit limit is equal to RAM size + pagefile size - a few MB. Task Manager shows a commit limit of only 16 GB but due to rounding it is likely closer to 17 GB. The most reasonable explanation is that MSI Afterburner is showing commit charge but misleadingly labeled as pagefile usage. This misleading labeling is actually quite common. XP Task Manager did just that.

From the information provided there is nothing to indicate that there is any pagefile usage at all.

But there is a problem in that the commit charge is very close to the commit limit. The commit limit cannot be exceeded. If the pagefile were disabled the limit would be lower than what is currently shown. Before that point were reached there would be out of memory errors. The fact that there is plenty of RAM is available is not at all relevant.

The situation regarding the high commit charge must be resolved before even considering disabling the pagefile.